[dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options
Marty Connor <mdc@etherboot.org> Fri, 30 November 2007 23:12 UTC
Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyF1z-0001d4-86; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:12:23 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyF1x-0001cN-9J for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:12:21 -0500
Received: from smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com ([205.234.170.144]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyF1w-0005Sq-KD for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:12:21 -0500
Received: from smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39056310D2B; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authenticated-Name: entitycyber
X-Transit-System: In case of SPAM please contact abuse@dnsmadeeasy.com
Received: from MDC-ALPB-G4-2.local (c-66-30-12-53.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [66.30.12.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <475098D1.1040808@etherboot.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:12:17 -0500
From: Marty Connor <mdc@etherboot.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 37af5f8fbf6f013c5b771388e24b09e7
Subject: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hello, First let me apologize for the lateness of this message. We have been uncertain how to proceed regarding the DHCP options that our project ( Etherboot Project, http://etherboot.org/ ) is using. At the strong suggestion of a colleague I am writing to give status of our current and planned usage of tentatively assigned DHCP options, and to ask for guidance from members of this list on how we should proceed to properly document our use of them. For those that might not be familiar with our project please allow me to give a brief introduction. The Etherboot Project has existed since about 1993. Our primary purpose has been to create and support Open Source network booting. Our most well-known network booting software is known as Etherboot. In the 14 year history of the project there have been three Project Leaders: Markus Gutschke, Ken Yap, and myself (Marty Connor). Each of us has worked to expand the capabilities of Etherboot, and in the last few years we have created a new network bootloader called gPXE. gPXE blends features of Etherboot with features of PXE, and adds some extensions not present in either specification. Etherboot's method of network booting predates the PXE specification and differs from it significantly. From using pre-wrapped binaries in NBI (Network Boot Image) format to handling of DHCP options. There is a large installed base of systems which use Etherboot BIOS Expansion ROMs or other media to network boot various operating systems. In 1999 we created the website: http://rom-o-matic.net/ To distribute free, on-demand, custom Etherboot ROM images. To date approximately 2,000,000 Etherboot images have been downloaded. This total does not include ROMs created by downloading Etherboot from SourceForge.net or by simply copying an existing image. In 2002 we began an effort to add PXE compatibility to Etherboot. This involved adding the PXE API to Etherboot, while maintaining support for legacy features. The current release of Etherboot (5.4.3) is capable of functioning as PXE boot ROM, with certain limitations. Etherboot is capable of loading PXELINUX, running RIS and other PXE NBPs and has proven useful for many applications, from network booting supercomputer clusters to enabling thin-client computing using economical hardware. In 2005 we began work on a rewrite of Etherboot called gPXE. Our aim was to create a bootloader that stronger compliance with the PXE specification with extensions that make sense for contemporary networking. Since 2005 (which is is when I became Project Leader), we have focussed most of our development energy on gPXE, and have made significant progress. gPXE is capable of both traditional PXE operation (DHCP+TFTP) plus a number of modern network booting methods, such as: * HTTP(S) booting * iSCSI booting * AoE booting Some of these network protocols required the addition of custom TCP stack for transport. We also added DNS support and URL parsing to support multiple protocols. That's a long preamble, but hopefully will give a sense of the level of effort we have invested in our software, and how many people have come to rely on it. Referring to the following document: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters I note that Etherboot is mentioned in four places: 128 Etherboot signature. 6 bytes: E4:45:74:68:00:00 150 Etherboot 175 Etherboot (Tentatively Assigned - 23 Jun 2005) 177 Etherboot (Tentatively Assigned - 23 Jun 2005) The first two (128 and 150) are in wide use. Option 150 is where options for our Etherboot bootloader have long been encapsulated. We also use 129 for passing kernel options in Etherboot. I note that former Project Leader Ken Yap and former developer Timothy Legge had begun work on securing options 175 and 177: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/slides/dhc-7.pdf As early as 2002 when work on incorporating PXE into Etherboot we began using Option 175 for encapsulation as this message from our Lead Developer, Michael Brown explains: http://osdir.com/ml/network.etherboot.devel/2002-05/msg00032.html Our usage of Option 175 continues in gPXE. Our use of Option 177 is less clear. We need to do further research to understand our motivation for requesting that option and how we are currently using it. So, in summary: * We are doing research into our use of DHCP options * We will work on an RFC draft for our usage * Any pointers would be appreciated. Thank you for any and all feedback regarding our situation. I once more apologize for the lateness of this communication, and thank you in advance for your thoughts. Regards, Marty _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Marty Connor
- Re: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Richard Johnson
- RE: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Marty Connor
- RE: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Marty Connor
- Re: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Richard Johnson
- Re: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Marty Connor
- RE: [dhcwg] Etherboot Project use of DHCP options Bernie Volz (volz)